"Adobe first launched Creative Suite 1 back in 2003, and now, ten years and six versions later, the company is taking a left turn: Adobe is abandoning its Creative Suite entirely to focus efforts on Creative Cloud."

How is making the Adobe suite cheaper and more accessible to all users going to help GIMP? This is a significantly cheaper option, for tools that are astronomically better.

Well, that really depends on which apps you use and how long you use a specific version. If you use enough of the products to warrant the Suite, using it for 2 years is the same price as buying it outright ($720 US). Use it for more than 2, and you're paying a lot more than current pricing.

A stand alone copy of Photoshop CS6 is around $600.00 retail. I own the DVD, and I can use the software theoretically forever. As long as I have the hardware and OS version, I can use it.

Now, I can 'rent' Photoshop CS7 for $19.99 a month. In three years, it will be the same price as if I bought it outright. By then CS8 will be out, and I will just start the whole thing all over again.

So yes, if I am someone who updates my version of Photoshop every time Adobe releases it, then it is the exact same pricing. But if I am not a big company or a pro-sumer who does that, then yes, this is not cheaper per se. I don't own the software. What if CS8 requires Windows OS 8.x and Mac OS XI as the minimum system requirements. The added costs now become the hardware and the OS needed to run the next 'cloud app' version Adobe will 'rent' me.

GIMP continues to get better with each iteration. It is roughly equivalent now to Photoshop 7 or CS1. I can combine that with an older physical copy of Photoshop from 7 up to CS6 (with the addition of countless shapes, brushes, and other plugins), and I will have saved myself significant costs PLUS I own the software outright PLUS I decide when I want to upgrade my systems PLUS I can do just as professional work as someone on CS7.

How is making the Adobe suite cheaper and more accessible to all users going to help GIMP?

Because I dare say the vast majority of Photoshop 'users' today are running a pirated version of Photoshop.

For amateurs/hobbyists who only use a very small subset of the features Photoshop offers, they can likely get those features from free applications.

If they can no longer pirate Photoshop a huge amount of these users will not find Photoshop worth the asking price and will turn elsewhere, possibly to Gimp.

Photoshop will remain the de facto choice amongst professionals, as it should be in my opinion given that it is the best software of it's type and have no real rival either from other commercial offerings nor from open source.

If they're the type who bought CS and always kept it up to date, price probably isn't going to be much of an incentive for change.

If they're the type who buys CS every few releases, they may just stick with the version they already own. That's cheaper than the GIMP (since there are no new skills to learn).

If they're the type who want to use CS for a short time (e.g. to learn it) then this is going to be cheaper.

I was chatting with the owner of a used computer shop a few years back. His biggest gripe was that people would come in for Photoshop, see the price, then ask to pirate it. He'd ask them what they need it for, then show them half a dozen alternatives that would be better for their needs and cost a fraction of the price. They rarely ever nibbled. You see, the problem with a lot of hobbyists is that they think they're pros or they want to become pros. So they want to use the software pros use. So convincing them to change will be hard.